Opinions on child maintenance when the NRP is a SAHP

[CrashesOverMe]

Just what the title says? NRP (Dad) has remarried and their wife is the breadwinner, thus their own income is zero as they are a SAHD. Legally they aren't required to pay anything but should they? (which would actually mean step parent paying!) In terms of child contact everyone is in agreement so although they could see their Dad more often, everyone is happy with him having the lower % of time.

@QueenoftheAir

He is a SAHD as for their family it's best financially but obviously not for his older kids

What a wonderful way to show his preference for some of his children over others. I despise men like this.

But working at the detriment of the youngest to ensure the eldest have more isn’t the same?

But working at the detriment of the youngest to ensure the eldest have more isn’t the same?

But right now he does absolutely nothing for his first children - financial or practical. He's sees them 25% of the time, which is all leisure time (e.g. no school runs). What is the point of him?

Step parent shouldn't have to pay for his kids I agree with that.

Morally dad should contribute something to his older kids regardless of his new partner being the breadwinner.
Maybe even his 'allowance' she gives him should be for his older kids.

Sounds like they've thought it out well so they are better off (not the older kids).

Don't see what you can do though op as they aren't going to rearrange their life to suit paying for his children.

What are you hoping for?

One child is at school, the other will be in September, so the 30h childcare and UC would cover it.

Any parent who avoids working to support their children and rely on other sources to do so should question their values.

It doesn't matter whether they are better off supported by the state or their partner, they are not supporting their children financially and that's deplorable.

I'm wondering whether OP unwillingness to work is one factor that contributed to the ex and new wife to decide he should give up his job,not that it makes it ok.

Wasn't there a thread some months ago which described the exact same situation, but it was the new partner who posted and dad had lost his job and they were making it work using the new partner's savings?

Is it a reverse?

@LaceyBetty

But working at the detriment of the youngest to ensure the eldest have more isn’t the same?

But right now he does absolutely nothing for his first children - financial or practical. He's sees them 25% of the time, which is all leisure time (e.g. no school runs). What is the point of him?

So the only time that counts for your kids is not ‘leisure time’?

He has them 25% of the time, I wouldn’t call that him doing nothing. During that time he has to care for them, feed them, wash them, bedtimes etc etc.

He may do more, homework/hobbies/days out? We don’t know. So that is nothing? I disagree.

Yes he doesn’t have to pick up the annoying juggling jobs right now which is frustrating. But I think a lot of NRP are the same. My ex only collects his DC from school if they are going straight to his, he only has them when he is off so doesnt have to juggle their care around work etc like I do. He attends my youngest hobby, sometimes when he has him but I arrange and pay for it all and do all admin, doctors appts, school stuff etc etc. But I wouldn’t say he does nothing. He cares for them when they are there, and takes them places.

I could make him do more well ask him to but I don’t. OP could also. She could request he sorts a weekend hobby for the eldest, or fills in school forms (most done via email). As I said during the pandemic he could have had them more to do homeschooling with the eldest or just to look after them and play.

I personally think there is no such thing as leisure time with young children, it’s all hard work, whatever percentage you do.

He in effect has even less leisure time as he has his twins 100% of the week and his other DC and twins the weekend. RP has a weekend off and the day with childcare (if the 30hrs are being claimed, or even some nursery time for youngest). And by ‘off’ I mean with no DC around.

@dontdisturbmenow I completely agree

@Blendiful of course that's not the only time that counts, but when you aren't contributing financially, you'd better be stepping up in a big way in other ways.

But right now he does absolutely nothing for his first children - financial or practical. He's sees them 25% of the time, which is all leisure time (e.g. no school runs). What is the point of him?

Quite

OP gets 25% of her time completely child free while the father looks after them. Cost free as the SM is paying for her children whilst they are with her household. But OP who doesn't like the idea of a job isn't getting £4 per child a day from him because he has two equally important 1yr olds to look after. So indeed, what is the point of him.

Seriously.

Good grief, I completely misread and thought OP had two pre-schoolers. She's got one in primary school and 4yr old about to start in September. She has no childcare expenses as of September and barely any now for the very short time the 4yr old attended it's 30 free hours a week.

Literally no excuse at all for OP. Yet the bending over backwards to fund her non working lifestyle she expects, at the detriment to one year old twins, is quite something.

Rather than choose to live off the maximum level of benefits, and expect another family who already have and pay for her children 25% of the time, with their own two babies, to turn their life upside down, and negatively affect those babies for her to receive £8 a day, OP would do well to look at how she could increase her income and provide for her children herself as opposed to focussing on any income, irrespective of the hardship it may cause other children, that avoids her taking any kind of job.

[quote LaceyBetty]@Blendiful of course that's not the only time that counts, but when you aren't contributing financially, you'd better be stepping up in a big way in other ways. [/quote]
Ideally he would be doing 50% of their care. I think during the pandemic without the logistics of school to consider so distance etc being less of an issue he could have done so. As long as he is a capable parent. And if that wasn’t explored it should have been. As I said earlier this then would have enabled the RP to work that 50% of the time and no maintainence would have been due anyway.

Lots of current WFH jobs available so actually in some ways it’s been a good time to look for work.

I started a job myself in April last year, a new job and have been WFH since. I wasn’t planning for that until the pandemic hit and childcare wise etc it’s been tons easier for me as I can work my working hours around my kids more than I would have been able to doing the same job under normal circumstances as I would have been office based.

He is stepping up in the biggest way possible for his 2 dc living with him, but yet this is being frowned upon?

As I said earlier if he turned around and said look, I can’t work, but I’m happy to have the kids full time so you can and care for all 4 of my DC full time, and RP have contact. Would this have been ok or accepted? I doubt it because then this is also frowned upon. But if time is the asset he currently has this is the asset he can offer. So either every weekend care to allow the RP to work, if she wants to remain as RP and doesn’t want the children to move. Or explore moving and sharing 50/50. Or they swap so he is RP and she is NRP and available to work.

All viable options, but dismissed by others for the option of dad must work, even if this at the detriment of the other 2 DC in this situation.

Hold on - they're not just her babies. They are 50% his too. He does 25% of their care and even then the OP facilitates it by doing some of the traveling. He pays 0%.

@Courtney555

Good grief, I completely misread and thought OP had two pre-schoolers. She's got one in primary school and 4yr old about to start in September. She has no childcare expenses as of September and barely any now for the very short time the 4yr old attended it's 30 free hours a week.

Literally no excuse at all for OP. Yet the bending over backwards to fund her non working lifestyle she expects, at the detriment to one year old twins, is quite something.

Rather than choose to live off the maximum level of benefits, and expect another family who already have and pay for her children 25% of the time, with their own two babies, to turn their life upside down, and negatively affect those babies for her to receive £8 a day, OP would do well to look at how she could increase her income and provide for her children herself as opposed to focussing on any income, irrespective of the hardship it may cause other children, that avoids her taking any kind of job.

Sorry but the NRP should still be paying towards their child. I am getting fed up of hearing that it shouldn't be expected or to let it go, even in my own case, what if we came on here and said well you know what DC's DF isn't paying and I've decided not to as well, what would the opinion be on that?! It's almost as though it's a shame to ask your exP who is the father of your DC fir money, no wonder they get away with so much!

YY Redruby. The OP should work too as soon as she gets s able because that increases the quality of her and her children's lives. But what she earns should be in addition to CS, not to replace it!

another family who already have and pay for her children 25%

They are HIS children too! This is not just "another family".

All this squabbling about figures and payments is I think detracting from the most important aspect; the father sat down and made arrangements with his wife with it seems only her and their shared children in mind.

@Blendiful when we didn't pay three months maintenance we didn't write if off, we are back paying. Also my DH did not decide with me to stop working as they made sense for our family. He makes his decisions with all of his children's needs in mind.

The OP's ex has four children. Half of his parental attention / support should go to their shared children. All of OP's attention / support should go to her own children. His new twins are not her concern. SM married a man who already had children. She married him understanding that he had other commitments. If he and SM came to an agreement to benefit the children then all of his children should have been considered. It is not on to be a SAHP to two of them and leave OP to manage on her own. Although I am happy for OP that SM is now stuck with a man with such a terrible character.

Well said @Sillysandy

The figures do matter because they show complete equity in this situation. I think that is what you can't argue with. A family decision was made but actually they may not of had a choice. Ultimately if cannot afford full time child care for twins you have very limited options here and we are assuming they have standard 9-5 jobs that isn't the case for many carreers people have . The OP doesn't get a seat at that table when that decision is made because she is not apart of that family. When you divorce someone that severed those ties. He has not left his older kids destitute here each child has one household income . But potentially if he was to work his wage simply doesn't cover the costs of all his children with full time Childcare and maintenance in that case what do you suggest this family do ? What the SM earns and the lifestyle she provides her children is her business as it is her money. Same goes to the OP.

Rather than choose to live off the maximum level of benefits, and expect another family who already have and pay for her children 25% of the time, with their own two babies, to turn their life upside down, and negatively affect those babies for her to receive £8 a day, OP would do well to look at how she could increase her income and provide for her children herself as opposed to focussing on any income, irrespective of the hardship it may cause other children, that avoids her taking any kind of job.

What a load of tosh! The "other family" is the children's father.

Although the OP seems well rid - he had an affair, left her for another woman, had two children straight away and is adamant that he's never going to contribute to their support.

Men like that make me angry - he's assuming the tax payer will pick up the bill for two of his children. Or that his ex-wife will work herself into the ground working full-time, and raising his children.

You are well rid of him @CrashesOverMe !

He pays 0% to any of his 4 kids though. Not just the 2 that RP has. All of them get 0 of his money. Because he has none. So none of his children are any better off, directly from him.

If he were eligible also to claim benefits the same as OP is I would expect him to contribute some of this to them. The same way OP does with her benefits. The point is, he isn’t eligible so can’t. So to contribute then yes he should work to do so. But OP should also work to do so. She doesn’t so I can see why he thinks ‘’well I can make that same choice too, then all of my children are in the same position. £0 from me as I don’t have it.’’

What he has is time, so if he can’t offer money, make him offer time. I have said earlier ways around this. The most ‘equal’ way being he is RP to all 4 children which leaves OP free to work 75% of the time, have 25% children which will all be ‘leisure time’ so she gets the good end here, according to PPs ?

If OP can choose not to work because it’s easier and she’d only be a little better off; then I don’t see why NRP can’t make the same choice because it’s easier and he would only be a tiny bit better off or more than likely, working for a loss due to the age of his twins.

UC isn’t affected by maintanence payments so what it pays out is the same whether someone has contributions from the ex or not. It’s calculated on the costs to be met with nothing extra. I’m not saying it does that, but that’s the idea. But if that loss of maintanence is a too much then someone needs to make that up. But it’s up to both parents to work that out somehow. It’s not just with the onus on the NRP to do it. He may have only had them 25% due to working previously, so now he can up this; they can even swap with him doing 75% and mum doing 25%.

It seems like lots are talking about how they are equally his responsibility but if the suggestion is made he then takes that on practically rather than financially it’s buffered away. As in why should OP lose time with her children. The answer is probably for the same reason NRP lose time with theirs because they have to work and the other parents working hours or nine working suits the children better.

That’s what should be considered, where is it best for the children to currently be either 50/50 or if not possible something else, in order to maximise their life, income and otherwise.

My DSC is usually 50/50, currently due to school shut it’s more like 75\25 with us. His mum doesn’t particularly want this but DP WFH tor himself whereas she has to go back to work; so no choice.

All child responsibility and money should be shared and what and how much depends on circumstance. These circumstance of the NRP have changed and so that of the children has by default. He can offer time, so take time. He can’t offer money so for now that’ll have to swap to the other parent, the same way it’s been on him previously.

He has left his older children destitute, since he is contributing nothing to their financial support.
If it's okay to argue that his household is nothing to do with the OP, then she's under no obligation to consider or care about his arrangements for his subsequent children and has every moral right to expect him to continue providing for the children they have together.

@Sillysandy If OPs ex's wage was not big enough for him to be the one to carry on working, then the choice the SM was actually faced with was continue working so their household could survive, or not. Either way, he may not have ended up with enough money to pay maintenance if he was only earning less than the amount for two children in childcare, and meanwhile their household would be at risk. It doesn't sound like as calculated a decision on her part as people are making out to me, it sounds like the only option for self preservation, likely exacerbated by them unexpectedly having twins and not having the budget to do what they may have planned.

I don't by any means think the dad has behaved well. He obviously moved away and had more children very quickly, and if OP is correct in her assessment that this is a long term arrangement and won't change as soon as he is able to access free childcare, there is no defence for that.

But I can't help shake the feeling that the SM is being unfairly blamed for "choosing" for him to stop working. It sounds like she took the only option that was available to her.

He has not left his older kids destitute here each child has one household income

Actually, he has pretty much left them destitute. He walked out on his family and stopped paying anything, despite previously being the main earner.

The reason they are not destitute is because the state has stepped in to pick up the tab. Even if the OP finds work, she will require considerable financial support and benefits as a single parent. So, yes, they won't be destitute but no thanks to him.

If I was the OP I'd be really tempted to go for 50/50 since this way no one would owe any child support and it would put him in the position of having to step up and actually fulfill some of his obligations to his first DC.
I bet he'd discover some reason why that didn't work for him though.

I think it's wrong for a parent to make a decision ( like being SAHP in a new relationship) that means they can't support their own children. It's not the step-parents responsibility, but the fathers. He needs to find a way to ensure he contributes fairly to the cost of raising his offspring.
Some people suggesting he can't work if he is looking after his (new) children. Well, he could, he could work evenings/weekends.

Arguably the SM does have some responsibility here since she was instrumental in the break up of this family. I guess someone who is so morally bankrupt that they would sleep with a married man who had young children, isn't going to baulk at non payment of CS though.